Metabolic Syndrome
Christina L. Aquilante, Pharm.D.; and Joseph P. Vande Griend, Pharm.D.,
BCPS
Reviewed by Tracey H. Taveira, Pharm.D., CDOE; Judy W.M. Cheng, Pharm.D., MPH, FCCP, BCPS,
(AQ Cardiology); and David Parra, Pharm.D., BCPS (AQ Cardiology)
Learning Objectives
1. Assess the role of abdominal obesity and insulin
resistance in the development and pathophysiology of
metabolic syndrome.
2. Assess the relationship between metabolic syndrome
and the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2
diabetes mellitus.
3. Diagnose metabolic syndrome using the most
appropriate risk factor criteria.
4. Design an appropriate plan, including goals of therapy
and integration of nondrug therapy, for treatment of
the underlying and metabolic risk factors in metabolic
syndrome.
5. Apply currently available consensus guidelines to the
treatment of atherogenic dyslipidemia, hypertension,
and glucose dysregulation in patients with metabolic
syndrome.
6. Evaluate the potential role of pharmacotherapeutic
agents that target the underlying pathophysiology of
metabolic syndrome.
Overview
Although metabolic syndrome seems to have only
recently engaged the attention of the medical community, the
concept that an interrelated group of metabolic abnormalities
is often present in people who develop cardiovascular
disease and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) has been
recognized for decades. The metabolic and underlying risk
factors that are components of metabolic syndrome include
abdominal obesity, atherogenic dyslipidemia, elevated
blood pressure, insulin resistance with or without glucose
intolerance, low-grade inflammation, and a prothrombotic
state. During the past 20 years, this clustering of metabolic
health risks has been known by several names (e.g., insulin
resistance syndrome, syndrome X, the deadly quartet,
hypertriglyceridemic waist). However, the term most
commonly used in clinical practice today is metabolic
syndrome. Although the predictive and clinical utility of
Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition
metabolic syndrome has been debated in some circles, it
generally is accepted that metabolic syndrome serves as
a construct to identify individuals who have an increased
long-term risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease
(ASCVD) with or without type 2 DM.
The primary factor driving the heightened awareness
of metabolic syndrome is its high prevalence in the United
States and worldwide. Cross-sectional analyses of U.S.
adults 20 years and older show age-adjusted metabolic
syndrome prevalence estimates of 29.2% (1988–1994)
and 32.3% (1999–2002). Epidemiologic studies show that
the prevalence of metabolic syndrome is higher in men
than in women (31.4% vs. 27.0%) and differs by race and
ethnicity (e.g., Mexican Americans, 31.9%; whites, 23.8%;
and African Americans, 21.6%). Another alarming trend is
the increased incidence of metabolic syndrome in young
people. Estimates of metabolic syndrome prevalence are
30% to 50% in overweight children and adolescents.
Associated Health Risks
In general, the presence of metabolic syndrome confers a
1.5- to 3-fold increase in the relative risk of ASCVD. A meta-
analysis showed that patients with metabolic syndrome had
a 1.78 times higher relative risk of cardiovascular events
and death compared with individuals without metabolic
syndrome. After adjustment for traditional cardiovascular
risk factors, metabolic syndrome was associated with a 1.54
times higher relative cardiovascular risk. Notably, women
with metabolic syndrome had a 1.33 times higher relative
risk of cardiovascular events and death compared with men.
The number of metabolic syndrome components also
influences the degree of risk. In one study, the presence
of four or more metabolic syndrome risk factors was
associated with a 3.7 times higher risk of cardiovascular
events. However, data suggest that the metabolic syndrome
construct is less likely to predict cardiovascular or total
mortality in individuals older than 65 years. Later in life,
certain metabolic syndrome components (e.g., hypertension)
are more closely tied with increased cardiovascular risk than
109 Metabolic Syndrome

Abbreviations in
This Chapter
ACE Angiotensin-converting enzyme
AHA/NHLBI American Heart Association National
Heart, Lung and Blood Institute
apoB Apolipoprotein B
ARB Angiotensin receptor blocker
ASCVD Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease
BMI Body mass index
CHD Coronary heart disease
DM Diabetes mellitus
HDL-C High-density lipoprotein cholesterol
IDF International Diabetes Federation
IFG Impaired fasting glucose
IGT Impaired glucose tolerance
LDL-C Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol
NCEP ATP III National Cholesterol Education
Program Adult Treatment Panel III
PPAR Peroxisome proliferator–
activated receptor
is metabolic syndrome itself. Thus, metabolic syndrome as
a construct to identify individuals with an increased long-
term risk of ASCVD is most applicable to middle-aged
adults.
Although viewed as a multiplex risk factor for ASCVD,
metabolic syndrome is also associated with a 3.5- to 5-fold
increase in the risk of type 2 DM. This is a logical association
given that insulin resistance underlies the clustering of
metabolic risk factors and that insulin resistance precedes
the development of type 2 DM. Like ASCVD, the risk of
type 2 DM increases linearly with the number of metabolic
risk factors present. One study showed that individuals with
four or more metabolic syndrome risk factors had about
a 25-fold increased risk of type 2 DM. Beyond ASCVD
and type 2 DM, metabolic syndrome is associated with
an increased risk of myriad diseases such as nonalcoholic
fatty liver disease, cholesterol gallstones, obstructive sleep
apnea, and gout.
Pathophysiology
Abdominal obesity and insulin resistance are viewed
as the core defects underlying the pathophysiology of
metabolic syndrome. These two risk factors are highly
interrelated; therefore, it is difficult to ascertain which
one plays the predominant role in metabolic syndrome
pathogenesis and progression. In addition, metabolic
syndrome pathophysiology is complicated by contributing
factors such as dysregulation of adipose tissue–derived
cytokines, inflammation, genetics, race/ethnicity, physical
inactivity, diet, hormone imbalances, drugs, and age. As
such, it is unrealistic to assume that metabolic syndrome
is caused by a single underlying defect. Instead, it is the
combination of numerous risk factors, primarily driven
Metabolic Syndrome
by obesity and insulin resistance, which gives rise to the
development of this clustering of metabolic health risks.
Obesity
Some experts view metabolic syndrome as the metabolic
complications of obesity. Obesity is associated with numerous
adverse health consequences such as cardiovascular
disease, type 2 DM, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and insulin
resistance. Recent changes in the understanding of adipose
tissue biology have led to the view that adipose tissue is no
longer a benign storage depot, but rather, a metabolically
active endocrine organ. Adipocytes release a variety of
substances into the circulation including, but not limited to,
free fatty acids, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha,
plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, adiponectin, leptin,
monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, lipoprotein lipase, and
angiotensinogen. Adipose tissue–derived proteins cause
alterations in glucose and lipid metabolism in muscle, liver,
and fat. Furthermore, these substances promote local and
systemic inflammatory and thrombotic states. To date, the
most widely studied adipose tissue–derived substances are
free fatty acids, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha,
adiponectin, and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1.
Release of nonesterified fatty acids from adipose tissue is
increased in obese states. Elevated circulating concentrations
of free fatty acids result in diminished hepatic and muscle
insulin sensitivity, increased hepatic cholesterol production,
and altered endothelial function. The inflammatory
cytokines interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha
impair insulin signaling and lead to insulin resistance and
adipose tissue lipolysis. Furthermore, adipose tissue–derived
interleukin-6 stimulates C-reactive protein production in
the liver. C-reactive protein, an acute-phase reactant, is a
major biomarker of the chronic low-grade inflammation
present in obesity and metabolic syndrome. Adiponectin,
an insulin-sensitizing, anti-inflammatory, and potentially
anti-atherogenic protein, is secreted exclusively by adipose
tissue. Higher circulating adiponectin concentrations are
associated with a decreased risk of ASCVD. For reasons not
yet fully elucidated, adiponectin secretion is paradoxically
decreased in states of obesity, insulin resistance, type 2
DM, and ASCVD. It is hypothesized that other cytokines
(e.g., tumor necrosis factor alpha, interleukin-6) inhibit the
secretion of adiponectin. Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1,
an inhibitor of fibrinolysis, is increased in obesity and
metabolic syndrome. Adipose tissue–derived cytokines and
free acids also stimulate the production of fibrinogen in the
liver, further contributing to a prothrombotic state.
Excess adipose tissue is recognized as a major contributor
to metabolic syndrome; however, the location of this fat is
also an important consideration. Visceral fat located deep
within the abdominal cavity is more metabolically active
than subcutaneous fat. Visceral fat delivers free fatty
acids and cytokines directly to the liver through the portal
circulation; consequently, intra-abdominal fat is more
closely tied to metabolic risk factors than subcutaneous
fat. Taken together, adipose tissue (particularly fat in the
visceral compartment) is an active endocrine organ that
secretes a variety of substances that mediate the unfavorable
metabolic, inflammatory, and thrombotic environment of
metabolic syndrome.
110 Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition
Insulin Resistance
Insulin resistance is a physiologic state in which the
ability of target tissues (e.g., muscle, liver, fat) to respond to
the normal actions of insulin is diminished. Consequently,
the ability of insulin to promote glucose uptake, inhibit
hepatic glucose production, and suppress lipolysis in target
tissues is decreased. Compensatory hyperinsulinemia is
often present in insulin-resistant states as the body works
to maintain glucose homeostasis. However, with time,
the pancreas is often unable to secrete sufficient amounts
of insulin to maintain glucose homeostasis. As a result,
impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance
(IGT), or type 2 DM may ensue. In some studies, insulin
resistance and hyperinsulinemia have been associated with
an increased risk of ASCVD.
Excess free fatty acids are thought to be responsible
for the development of insulin resistance in obesity and
metabolic syndrome. In turn, a vicious cycle ensues
whereby insulin resistance further promotes adipose tissue
lipolysis, resulting in even greater release of free fatty
acids into the circulation. Hepatic insulin resistance results
in increased triglyceride and apolipoprotein B (apoB)
production and in decreased high-density lipoprotein
cholesterol (HDL-C), all of which are characteristic lipid
abnormalities observed in metabolic syndrome. Insulin
resistance also causes diminished glucose uptake in muscle
and fat and causes increased glucose production in the liver.
With time, this contributes to overt glucose abnormalities
such as prediabetes or type 2 DM. Insulin resistance and
hyperinsulinemia are associated with overactivity of the
sympathetic nervous system, increased sodium reabsorption
in the kidney, and decreased vasodilation, all of which may
contribute to the development of hypertension. In addition,
through alterations in insulin signaling and the expression of
cytokines, insulin resistance is thought to contribute to the
inflammatory and thrombotic states observed in metabolic
syndrome.
The broad physiologic effects of insulin resistance on
metabolic risk factors have spurred some experts to view
it as the underlying cause of metabolic syndrome. Indeed,
insulin resistance is present in many, but not all, patients
with metabolic syndrome. Insulin resistance is also closely
intertwined with obesity. However, not all obese patients are
insulin resistant, nor are all insulin-resistant patients obese.
In addition, it is difficult to measure insulin resistance
in clinical practice. The gold standard measurement of
insulin resistance—the hyperinsulinemic euglycemic
clamp test—is purely a research tool. Surrogate measures
of insulin resistance exist, such as fasting plasma insulin
concentrations or the homeostasis model assessment
calculation (fasting insulin [in microunits per milliliter]
times fasting glucose [in milligrams per deciliter] divided
by 405). However, these surrogate measures are flawed
because of the variability in insulin measurements between
laboratories and the absence of cut points to indicate
insulin resistance or hyperinsulinemia. For these reasons,
it is challenging to pinpoint the exact role insulin resistance
plays in the development of metabolic syndrome. It is more
likely that insulin resistance contributes, at least partially, to
the development of most metabolic syndrome risk factors.
Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition
Characterization
and Diagnosis
Abdominal Obesity
Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging
are the most accurate tools to assess intra-abdominal
adiposity. However, these measurements are expensive
and impractical to routinely use in the clinical setting.
Measurement of an individual’s waist circumference with
a cloth tape measure is a simple yet practical way to assess
intra-abdominal fat. To measure waist circumference, the
patient should stand in the upright position. The top of the
iliac crest (hip bone) and the bottom of the lower rib should
be palpated, and the midway point between these two
landmarks should be marked. Waist circumference should
be measured at the midway point at the end of a gentle
exhalation. The measuring tape should be flat to the body
and snug but not tight.
The American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung
and Blood Institute (AHA/NHLBI) metabolic syndrome
diagnostic criteria define abdominal obesity as a waist
circumference of 102 cm or greater in men or 88 cm or greater
in women. People of Asian descent may have metabolic risk
factors (e.g., insulin resistance) with only modest increases
in waist circumference. Therefore, in this racial group,
lower waist circumference cut points of 90 cm or greater
in men or 80 cm or greater in women are appropriate. In
addition, certain individuals of non-Asian descent (e.g.,
those with a family history of type 2 DM in first-degree
relatives younger than 60 years, polycystic ovary syndrome,
nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) may have metabolic risk
factors or insulin resistance with only moderate increases in
waist circumference (i.e., 94–101 cm in men, 80–87 cm in
women).
Because metabolic risk factors are often present
with only marginal increases in waist circumference,
the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) metabolic
syndrome diagnostic criteria use lower waist circumference
cut points. Specifically, the IDF guideline defines abdominal
obesity as 94 cm or greater in men or 80 cm or greater in
women. Ethnic-specific waist circumference cut points are
also provided for the following populations: Europid, South
Asian, Chinese, Japanese, South and Central America, Sub-
Saharan Africa, Eastern Mediterranean, and the Middle
East.
There has been debate about why body mass index
(BMI), an indicator of total body adiposity, is not present
in most metabolic syndrome diagnostic criteria. Indeed,
BMI and waist circumference are highly correlated
measures, with studies reporting correlation coefficients
of about 0.80. However, for a given BMI, studies show that
the location of fat, rather than the total amount of body
fat, is most predictive of metabolic and cardiovascular
risks. In the clinical setting, BMI should be ascertained
to classify individuals as underweight (less than 18.5 kg/
m2), normal weight (18.5 kg/m 2 to 24.9 kg/m2), overweight
(25 kg/m 2 to 29.9 kg/m 2), obese (30 kg/m2 to 39.9 kg/
m2), or extremely obese (40 kg/m 2 or greater). After BMI
determination, measurement of waist circumference should
be performed. Unfortunately, waist circumference is not
111 Metabolic Syndrome
routinely measured by many practitioners even though it is
simple, inexpensive, and informative. Compared with BMI
assessment alone, measurement of waist circumference is
more likely to identify a subgroup of overweight or obese
patients who are particularly insulin resistant or who are
likely to carry additional metabolic abnormalities (e.g.,
hypertriglyceridemia). Thus, the routine measurement of
waist circumference should be promoted in clinical practice.
Atherogenic Dyslipidemia
Dyslipidemia in metabolic syndrome is characterized
by the presence of elevated triglycerides, low HDL-C,
and normal to elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol
(LDL-C). Elevated triglycerides and the presence of low
HDL-C serve as individual components in the diagnosis
of metabolic syndrome. Further evaluation of dyslipidemia
in patients with metabolic syndrome, especially those with
high triglycerides, often reveals high concentrations of
small, dense LDL-C particles and elevated concentrations of
apoB, a lipoprotein whose concentration represents the sum
of all particles considered to have the highest atherogenic
potential. When LDL-C particles are small and dense, their
atherogenic potential is increased. Similarly, when apoB is
elevated, atherogenesis is also elevated. Concentrations of
apoB may provide a better representation of cardiovascular
risk than LDL-C. However, measurement and monitoring of
apoB are not yet universally performed.
Hypertension
An elevated systolic or diastolic blood pressure is another
criterion for metabolic syndrome. For patients without
comorbid medical conditions, blood pressure levels above
140/90 mm Hg are considered elevated. Patients at high
risk of cardiovascular disease are considered hypertensive
if their blood pressure is above 130/80 mm Hg. Patients
in this category include those with DM, chronic kidney
disease, known coronary artery disease, a coronary artery
disease equivalent (e.g., carotid artery disease, peripheral
artery disease, abdominal aortic aneurysm), or a 10-year
Framingham risk score of 10% or more.
Elevated Fasting Glucose
Elevated fasting glucose is defined as fasting plasma
glucose of 100 mg/dL or greater. This definition includes
patients with IFG; fasting plasma glucose between 100 mg/
dL and 126 mg/dL) and type 2 DM (fasting plasma glucose
of 126 mg/dL or greater). Thus, elevated fasting glucose
represents a progressive continuum of abnormal glucose
homeostasis. Although not explicitly listed under the elevated
fasting glucose category, IGT is also recognized as a state of
altered glucose homeostasis. Impaired glucose tolerance is
defined as a 2-hour plasma glucose concentration between
140 mg/dL and 200 mg/dL on a 75-g oral glucose tolerance
test, in the presence of fasting plasma glucose less than 126
mg/dL. The states of IFG and IGT are commonly referred
to as prediabetes. The conversion of prediabetes to type 2
DM occurs at a rate of 5% to 10% per year. In addition, most
studies have shown that IFG and IGT are independent, albeit
weak, risk factors for cardiovascular disease.
A plasma glucose concentration after an overnight fast is
the test of choice to identify IFG or type 2 DM. Individuals
with normoglycemia or IFG may benefit from an oral
Metabolic Syndrome
glucose tolerance test because it may uncover the presence
of IGT or type 2 DM. An oral glucose tolerance test may
be particularly useful in individuals who are at high risk
of developing type 2 DM (e.g., those with a strong family
history of type 2 DM, prior gestational diabetes, polycystic
ovary syndrome). Furthermore, an oral glucose tolerance
test is required to determine whether pharmacologic therapy
should be instituted in patients with prediabetes.
Prothrombotic and Pro-inflammatory State
Fibrinogen, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, cytokines,
and C-reactive protein are often elevated in patients with
metabolic syndrome, resulting in a prothrombotic and
pro-inflammatory state. Besides C-reactive protein, these
biomarkers of inflammation and thrombosis are not routinely
evaluated in clinical practice. C-reactive protein is often
measured in the laboratory as high-sensitivity C-reactive
protein. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations
greater than 3 mg/dL represent a state of inflammation and
a higher risk of ASCVD.
Diagnostic Criteria
During the past 10 years, several groups have developed
criteria for the identification and clinical diagnosis of
metabolic syndrome. These criteria have emerged on the
basis of the relative importance each group assigns to certain
metabolic risk factors. Numerous criteria are available;
however, the AHA/NHLBI and IDF criteria are the most
commonly used because of their simplicity and practicality
in the clinical setting. Although more complicated, World
Health Organization (WHO) criteria are also used in some
parts of the world. The AHA/NHLBI, IDF, and WHO
metabolic syndrome diagnostic criteria are provided in
Table 1-1.
Management of
Metabolic Syndrome
Role of the Pharmacist
Pharmacists play an integral role in the independent and
collaborative management of the individual components of
metabolic syndrome. The benefit of the pharmacist to the
care of these patients has been documented in a variety of
clinical settings including community pharmacy, managed
care, and independent clinical practice. In these and other
settings, pharmacists provide care through screening and
identification of high-risk individuals, through collaborative
practice agreements with supervising physicians, and
by means of multidisciplinary collaboration. Outcomes
achieved by pharmacists that relate to metabolic syndrome
include significant reductions in blood pressure, lipids,
weight, and hemoglobin A1C. The advent and expansion
of point-of-care technology, allowing pharmacists to
independently assess patient risk factors at the time of a
clinic visit, will further increase the pharmacist’s role in this
area.
112 Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition
Risk Assessment
Determining the best pharmacotherapeutic approach
for patients with metabolic syndrome is dependent on the
known or estimated risk of ASCVD, which may vary widely
among patients who meet criteria for metabolic syndrome.
For instance, a patient with metabolic syndrome may have
existing coronary artery disease and/or existing type 2 DM.
Such patients are at a much higher risk of ASCVD than
patients with metabolic syndrome who do not have existing
diseases. Similarly, goals of therapy vary widely given the
presence or absence of disease. Treatment of patients who
do not have diabetes or clinically evident atherosclerotic
disease is focused on preventing the development of
these diseases. For these patients, the Framingham
risk assessment tool (http://hp2010.nhlbihin.net/atpiii/
calculator.asp?usertype=prof) can be used to predict a
patient’s 10-year risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).
The Framingham risk assessment tool quantifies this risk
and provides guidance for the appropriate treatment goals
for these patients. Table 1-2 provides metabolic syndrome
treatment goals based on Framingham risk. For patients
with existing elevated fasting glucose or diagnosed diabetes,
interventions aimed at preventing microvascular and
macrovascular complications are implemented. Treatment
of patients with existing atherosclerotic disease is focused
on the prevention of secondary vascular events.
Underlying Risk Factors
The primary goal of metabolic syndrome management
is to decrease the risk of ASCVD and type 2 DM. The
principal way to accomplish this goal is to institute lifestyle
interventions that target lifestyle risk factors such as
obesity, physical inactivity, atherogenic diet, and smoking.
Regardless of ASCVD risk, all patients with metabolic
syndrome are candidates for lifestyle intervention. Metabolic
risk factors such as atherogenic dyslipidemia, elevated
blood pressure, or prediabetes can benefit from lifestyle
interventions. If metabolic syndrome is present in patients
with existing ASCVD or diabetes, lifestyle strategies and
pharmacologic therapies should be instituted according to
current consensus guidelines to decrease complications
associated with these conditions.
Abdominal Obesity
In patients with abdominal obesity, the primary weight-
loss goal is a 7% to 10% reduction in total body weight
during a period of 6–12 months. The ultimate goal is to
achieve a BMI less than 25 kg/m 2 and a waist circumference
less than 102 cm in men and less than 88 cm in women. This

Table 1-1. AHA/NHLBI, IDF, and WHO Metabolic Syndrome Diagnostic Criteria
AHA/NHLBI IDF WHO
Number of Any 3 of 5 below Abdominal obesity plus 2 Type 2 diabetes mellitus,a IFG,b
required criteria others below IGT,c or lowered insulin
sensitivityd plus 2 others below
Abdominal obesity Waist circumference ≥ 102 cm in Increased waist circumference Waist-to-hip ratio of > 0.90 in men
men or ≥ 88 cm in women (population-specifice [e.g., or > 0.85 in women and/or BMI
Europid ≥ 94 cm in men or ≥ 80 > 30 kg/m 2
cm in women])
Elevated triglycerides ≥ 150 mg/dL, or drug treatment for ≥ 150 mg/dL, or drug treatment for ≥ 150 mg/dL
high triglycerides (i.e., fibrates or high triglycerides (i.e., fibrates or
nicotinic acid) nicotinic acid)
Low HDL-C < 40 mg/dL in men or < 50 mg/dL in < 40 mg/dL in men or < 50 mg/dL in < 35 mg/dL in men or < 39 mg/dL
women; or drug treatment for low women; or drug treatment for low in women
HDL-C (i.e., fibrates or nicotinic HDL-C (i.e., fibrates or nicotinic
acid) acid)
Elevated blood Systolic ≥ 130 mm Hg and/or Systolic ≥ 130 mm Hg and/or ≥ 140/90 mm/Hg
pressure diastolic ≥ 85 mm Hg; or drug diastolic ≥ 85 mm Hg; or drug
treatment for hypertension treatment for hypertension
Elevated fasting ≥ 100 mg/dL; or drug treatment for ≥ 100 mg/dL; or drug treatment for Required, see first row in
plasma glucose elevated glucose elevated glucose this column
Other – – Microalbuminuria ≥ 20 mcg/
minute or albumin-to-creatinine
ratio ≥ 20 mg/g
a
Type 2 diabetes mellitus = fasting plasma glucose of 126 mg/dL or greater or 2-hour post load glucose of 200 mg/dL or greater.
b
Impaired fasting glucose = fasting plasma glucose between 110 mg/dL and 125 mg/dL and 2-hour post load glucose less than 140 mg/dL. The American
Diabetes Association has since revised the definition of IFG to be fasting plasma glucose between 100 mg/dL and 125 mg/dL.
c
Impaired glucose tolerance = fasting plasma glucose less than 126 mg/dL and 2-hour post load glucose between 140 mg/dL and 199 mg/dL.
d
Insulin sensitivity glucose uptake below the lowest quartile for background population under investigation, as measured under hyperinsulinemic
euglycemic clamp conditions.
e
Europid ≥ 94 cm men or ≥ 80 cm women; South Asian and Chinese ≥ 90 cm men or ≥ 80 cm women; Japanese ≥ 85 cm men or ≥ 90 cm women; ethnic
South and Central Americans ≥ 90 cm men or ≥ 80 cm women; Sub-Saharan Africans ≥ 94 cm men or ≥ 80 cm women; Eastern Mediterranean and
Middle East (Arab) populations ≥ 94 cm men or ≥ 80 cm women.
AHA/NHLBI = American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; BMI = body mass index; HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein
cholesterol; IDF = International Diabetes Federation; IFG = impaired fasting glucose; IGT = impaired glucose tolerance; WHO = World Health
Organization.
Information from the American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute metabolic syndrome diagnostic criteria; International
Diabetes Federation metabolic syndrome definition, and World Health Organization metabolic syndrome definition.

Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition 113 Metabolic Syndrome

Table 1-2. Treatment Goals Based on Framingham Risk for Patients Without Existing Disease
Framingham Risk (%) Blood Pressure (mm Hg) LDL-C (mg/dL) Non–HDL-C (mg/dL) FPG (mg/dL) Aspirin
< 10 < 140/90 < 160, < 130
a a
< 190, < 160
b b
< 100 Considerc
10–20 < 130/80 < 130, < 100d < 160, < 130d < 100 Yes
> 20 < 130/80 < 100, < 70e < 130, < 100e < 100 Yes
a
Goal less than 160 mg/dL for patients with 0 or 1 major risk factor (i.e., cigarette smoking, hypertension, low HDL-C, premature coronary heart disease,
or age); goal less than 130 mg/dL for patients with two or more major risk factors.
b
Goal less than 190 mg/dL for patients with 0 or 1 major risk factor; goal less than 160 mg/dL for patients with two or more major risk factors.
c
Some patients with metabolic syndrome will meet criteria according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force statement concerning the use of aspirin
for the prevention of cardiovascular disease.
d
Multiple major risk factors, severe and poorly controlled risk factors (especially continued cigarette smoking), or metabolic syndrome.
e
Established coronary heart disease plus any of the following: multiple major risk factors (especially diabetes), severe and poorly controlled risk factors
(especially continued cigarette smoking), metabolic syndrome, or recent acute coronary syndrome.
FPG = fasting plasma glucose; LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; non–HDL-C = non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
Information from Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Daniels SR, Donato KA, Eckel RH, Franklin BA, et al. Diagnosis and management of the metabolic
syndrome: an American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Scientific Statement. Circulation 2005;112:2735–52; Rosendorff C,
Black HR, Cannon CP, Gersh BJ, Gore J, Izzo JL Jr, et al. Treatment of hypertension in the prevention and management of ischemic heart disease: a
scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council for High Blood Pressure Research and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology and
Epidemiology and Prevention. Circulation 2007;115:2761–88; and National Institutes of Health. Third Report of the Expert Panel on Detection,
Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). Available at www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/index.
htm. Accessed June 5, 2009.

degree of weight loss can be achieved by reducing caloric
intake by 500–1000 calories per day and increasing physical
activity. The physical activity component should focus on
the accumulation of 30–60 minutes of moderate-intensity
exercise coupled with increased daily lifestyle activities (e.g.,
pedometer step tracking, gardening, housework) for 5 days/
week or more. Exercise stress testing should be performed
before initiating an exercise program in individuals with
existing cardiovascular disease, recent acute coronary
syndrome, or recent revascularization.
Regarding weight loss, the most common question both
patients and health care practitioners pose is: Which type of
diet is most effective? Although no consensus exists about
which diet is most effective for patients with metabolic
syndrome, data suggest that a Mediterranean-style diet may
be particularly beneficial in this population. Mediterranean-
style diets incorporate foods rich in monounsaturated
fats (e.g., olive oil) and omega-3 fatty acids (e.g., fish). In
addition, these diets include daily amounts of fruit (250–300
g), vegetables (125–250 g), nuts (25–50 g), and low-fat whole
grains (400 g). A study of patients with metabolic syndrome
found that after 2 years of intervention, a Mediterranean-
style diet was associated with a significantly greater amount
of weight loss than a control diet (−4.0 kg vs. −1.2 kg). In
this study, the Mediterranean-style diet also favorably
modulated metabolic risk factors such as inflammatory
cytokines and insulin sensitivity. At the end of the study,
metabolic syndrome was still present in 44% of patients in
the Mediterranean-style diet group compared with 87% of
patients in the control group.
Recently, a clinical study compared Mediterranean-style,
low-fat, and low-carbohydrate diets. Study participants
were moderately obese and had many metabolic risk
factors. After 2 years, weight loss was greater with the
nonrestricted-calorie low-carbohydrate diet (−4.7 kg) and
the restricted-calorie Mediterranean diet (−4.4 kg) compared
with the restricted-calorie low-fat diet (−2.9 kg). Subgroup
analysis showed that the low-carbohydrate diet had the
most favorable effect on lipids, whereas the Mediterranean-
style diet was associated with the largest decrease in
fasting plasma glucose and the greatest improvement in
insulin sensitivity.
Another study compared the effectiveness of four popular
diets: Atkins (carbohydrate restriction), Zone (macronutrient
balance), Weight Watchers (calorie restriction), and Ornish
(fat restriction). After 1 year of intervention, weight loss did
not differ significantly between the diet groups. Notably,
more patients prematurely discontinued the Atkins and
Ornish diets (48% and 50%, respectively) compared with
the Weight Watchers and Zone diets (35% discontinuation
in both groups). Taken together, these studies suggest that
selection of a diet based solely on the anticipated amount
of weight loss is not enough. Instead, consideration must
be given to patient food preferences and the likelihood
of patient adherence. Diets such as the Weight Watchers
program or a Mediterranean-style diet, which incorporate
a variety of food choices that can be tailored to different
lifestyles or medical conditions, may prove to be the best
means for successful and long-term weight loss.
Patients often request pharmacologic therapy to assist
in their weight-loss endeavors. However, weight-loss drugs
have limited use in patients with metabolic syndrome
because these agents cause only 3% to 5% greater weight
loss compared with placebo. In addition, pharmacologic
weight-loss drugs are associated with significant adverse
effects. Agents such as orlistat, sibutramine, phentermine,
or diethylpropion are usually reserved as adjuncts to diet
and exercise in patients with a BMI greater than 30 kg/m 2
whose diet and exercise alone have not resulted in sufficient
weight loss. Pharmacologic therapy may be considered for
individuals with a BMI between 27 kg/m2 and 30 kg/m2
if obesity-related disease (e.g., type 2 DM, cardiovascular
disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, sleep apnea) is present
and diet and exercise alone have not worked.
When selecting a pharmacologic weight-loss agent,
careful consideration must be given to the adverse effect
profile and any contraindications to therapy. Orlistat is
an intestinal lipase inhibitor that decreases dietary fat
absorption by 30%. Patient adherence to orlistat is typically
poor because of significant gastrointestinal adverse

Metabolic Syndrome 114 Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition

effects (e.g., flatulence, oily stools, fecal incontinence).
Sibutramine, a centrally acting inhibitor of serotonin and
norepinephrine reuptake, is associated with increased blood
pressure, increased heart rate, arrhythmias, and central
nervous system adverse effects. Therefore, sibutramine
may not be appropriate for patients with hypertension or
cardiovascular disease. Phentermine and diethylpropion
are centrally acting adrenergic stimulants. Although they
effectively suppress appetite, both agents are associated
with increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, and
central nervous system stimulation. Furthermore, there is a
risk of dependence and abuse with these agents.
Bariatric surgery is a potential treatment option for
obesity; however, it is usually reserved for individuals with
a BMI of 40 kg/m 2 or greater (i.e., morbid obesity). Bariatric
surgery may be considered for the patient with a BMI
between 35 kg/m2 and 40 kg/m2 if obesity-related disease
is present and the patient has been unable to lose weight
with lifestyle interventions alone. In the appropriate patient,
bariatric surgery results in substantial health benefits such
as resolution of diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and
sleep apnea; however, the anticipated benefits must outweigh
the potential risks associated with this surgery. Psychosocial
Individual components:
• Central abdominal obesity
AHA/NHLBI criteria or abdominal obesity plus
• Elevated triglycerides
2 additional components per IDF criteria)
• Low HDL-C
• Impaired fasting glucose
• Hypertension
Determine 10-year Framingham risk No
Treat individual components
considering Framingham riska
Hypertension Elevated fasting Atherogenic
glucose dyslipidemia
Figure 1-1. Algorithm for the management of metabolic syndrome.
a
Refer to Table 1-2.
AHA/NHLBI = American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease;
HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; IDF = International Diabetes Federation.
Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition
factors (e.g., psychiatric disorders, binge-eating disorder,
substance abuse, low socioeconomic status) must be fully
evaluated before surgery because these conditions may
negatively influence the extent of weight loss after surgery.
Although not recommended in clinical guidelines, a recent
study showed that, compared with conventional diabetes
therapy, bariatric surgery improved type 2 DM remission
rates and glycemic control in patients with type 2 DM who
had a BMI between 30 kg/m 2 and 40 kg/m2.
Metabolic Risk Factors
For patients with metabolic syndrome but without
existing diabetes or ASCVD, pharmacotherapy focuses
on treating the individual components of metabolic
syndrome. Therapeutic interventions target the treatment
of atherogenic dyslipidemia, hypertension, elevated fasting
plasma glucose, and prothrombotic state. Figure 1-1 is an
algorithm summarizing the management of metabolic risk
factors in the patient with metabolic syndrome.
Atherogenic Dyslipidemia
Treatments targeting the characteristic atherogenic
dyslipidemia in patients with metabolic syndrome have
Diagnosis of metabolic syndrome
(3 of 5 individual components per
All patients should be encouraged to lose
weight, increase physical activity, and
improve diet
Existing type 2
Yes
diabetes or
ASCVD?
Treat diabetes or ASCVD
according to current guideline
recommendations
Initiate low-dose aspirin, consider
clopidogrel in those with ASCVD
when aspirin contraindicated
Prothrombotic
state
115 Metabolic Syndrome
not been evaluated in controlled trials. However, the
cardiovascular benefit of lowering LDL-C has been well
studied and well documented. Because of this, the primary
target remains LDL-C in patients with metabolic syndrome.
The LDL-C goal in this population is determined by the
presence or absence of risk factors, as well as the presence
or absence of CHD or CHD equivalence (i.e., diabetes,
ischemic stroke, abdominal aortic aneurysm, peripheral
vascular disease, or Framingham risk score of 20% or
greater). Patients with CHD or CHD equivalence have a
minimal LDL-C goal of less than 100 mg/dL. In patients
without CHD or CHD equivalence, the LDL-C goal varies
with risk factors according to the National Cholesterol
Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP
III) guidelines. To achieve the LDL-C goal in patients with
metabolic syndrome, treatment with HMG CoA reductase
inhibitors (statins) remains the preferred initial therapy.
Statins are potent reducers of LDL-C with strong evidence
supporting cardiovascular benefit, although the evidence
is not specific for patients with metabolic syndrome. In
addition to reducing LDL-C, statins reduce all other apoB-
containing lipoproteins.
When statin therapy is not tolerated, or when maximal
statin therapy does not achieve the desired LDL-C reduction,
additional LDL-C lowering therapy with ezetimibe, bile acid
sequestrants, or niacin is warranted. Monotherapy with bile
acid sequestrants must be done cautiously in patients with
metabolic syndrome because of their propensity to increase
triglycerides. Bile acid sequestrants can also be difficult to
tolerate. Ezetimibe can provide an 18% reduction in LDL-C
when used as monotherapy or when added to existing
statin therapy. Nicotinic acid reduces all apoB lipoproteins,
reduces triglycerides, and raises HDL-C.
Patients who have existing cardiovascular disease
and risk factors for metabolic syndrome, especially high
triglycerides (200 mg/dL or greater) with a non–HDL-C of
130 mg/dL or greater and a low HDL-C (40 mg/dL or less),
are deemed at very high risk and should be considered for
treatment to achieve an LDL-C goal of less than 70 mg/dL.
Aggressive treatment of LDL-C in patients with metabolic
syndrome is supported by findings from a subgroup analysis
of the Treating to New Targets Study. The study randomized
10,001 patients with baseline CHD to atorvastatin 10 mg or
80 mg. The 5584 study patients with metabolic syndrome
were evaluated by subgroup analysis for the primary end
point of first major cardiovascular event. Treatment with
atorvastatin 80 mg, which attained a mean LDL-C of
72.6 mg/dL, reduced the primary end point significantly
compared with treatment with atorvastatin 10 mg, which
attained a mean LDL-C of 99.3 mg/dL. Because the study
only enrolled subjects with clinically evident CHD, results
of the analysis can only be applied to patients with both
metabolic syndrome and CHD.
Once the LDL-C goal is achieved in patients with
metabolic syndrome, secondary targets are identified. For
patients with a triglyceride concentration of 200 mg/dL or
greater, the non–HDL-C becomes the secondary target.
Non–HDL-C, defined as total cholesterol minus HDL-C,
represents all cholesterol in the body considered atherogenic.
Goal target for non–HDL-C is less than 30 mg/dL above
the LDL-C goal. Intensifying LDL-C lowering therapy
will lower total cholesterol and reduce overall atherogenic
Metabolic Syndrome
particle burden. If goal non–HDL-C cannot be achieved with
intensified statin therapy, the initiation of fibrate therapy or
nicotinic acid is warranted. Nicotinic acid may be preferred
given better evidence of safety when used in combination
with statin therapy. Fibrates, in turn, can lower triglycerides,
convert small LDL-C particles into larger particles, and
raise HDL-C. Caution must be exercised when combining
fibrates or niacin with statins because of an increased risk of
myopathy or rhabdomyolysis. This interaction appears to be
less likely with fenofibrate compared with gemfibrozil.
Goal concentrations for apoB have not been well defined.
Non–HDL-C correlates well with apoB to calculate the
amount of atherogenic particles when evaluated on a
population basis. However, the two are often not concordant
on the individual patient level. Given this, attainment of
the non–HDL-C goal does not guarantee attainment of
the apoB goal. A recent expert consensus proposed an
apoB goal of less than 80 mg/dL to be targeted in patients
at highest risk and a goal of less than 90 mg/dL for those
with lower risk after the attainment of LDL-C and non–
HDL-C goals. The highest-risk group includes those with
known cardiovascular disease or those with diabetes plus an
additional major risk factor (i.e., smoking, hypertension, or
family history of premature coronary artery disease). There
are few data to support the benefits of attaining the apoB
goal compared with attaining LDL-C or non–HDL-C goals.
To attain the apoB goal, intensification of statin therapy
or the addition of nicotinic acid or fibrate therapy may be
necessary.
After targeting LDL-C and non–HDL-C, increasing
HDL-C to the greatest extent possible becomes the next
focus of therapy in the treatment of dyslipidemia in
metabolic syndrome. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol
is anti-atherogenic, thus providing protection against
cardiovascular disease. Interventions aimed at increasing
HDL-C include the addition of a fibrate or nicotinic acid
to statin therapy, increased physical activity, dietary
modifications, weight reduction, and smoking cessation.
In clinical practice, practitioners can expect to use high-
dose, high-potency statin therapy to achieve the LDL-C
goal in patients with metabolic syndrome. The addition of a
second LDL-C lowering therapy may be necessary to achieve
the LDL-C goal. Ezetimibe is commonly used despite a lack
of definitive evidence because of its tolerability, lack of
drug interactions, and ease of administration. Attainment of
the secondary goal, the non–HDL-C, can also be difficult.
Many patients will have required maximal LDL-C lowering
therapy to attain the LDL-C goal. In this population, the
addition of a fibrate or nicotinic acid may be necessary to
provide additional LDL-C and triglyceride lowering. Again,
caution must be exercised when combining fibrates or
niacin with statins because of an increased risk of myopathy
or rhabdomyolysis. The use of high-dose omega-3 fatty
acids can be beneficial in lowering elevated triglycerides,
but it does not appear that omega-3 fatty acids lower apoB
to a clinically significant extent. The benefit of fish oil in
lowering overall atherogenic particle burden is unclear at
this time. A summary of the magnitude of effect of select
cholesterol-lowering agents on atherogenic dyslipidemia is
provided in Table 1-3.
116 Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition
Hypertension
The specific treatment of hypertension in patients with
metabolic syndrome has not been directly addressed by
clinical trials. Furthermore, no guideline statement focuses
on the treatment of hypertension in this population. Current
recommendations for treatment are extrapolated from
hypertension and metabolic syndrome guideline consensus
statements and available clinical data.
According to the Seventh Report of the Joint National
Committee, compelling indications (e.g., prior ischemic
stroke, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, heart failure,
existing coronary artery disease) dictate the choice of initial
and preferred antihypertensive therapy for patients who
have metabolic syndrome and a compelling indication. For
patients who require blood pressure reduction for general
heart disease prevention, or for patients at high risk of
the development of coronary artery disease, angiotensin-
converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor
blockers (ARBs), calcium channel blockers, and thiazide-
type diuretics are all appropriate as first-line therapy or in
combination as necessary. Therapy with b-blockers can be
added to these antihypertensive classes but is primarily
used in patients with stable angina, myocardial infarction,
or left ventricular systolic dysfunction. In patients with
metabolic syndrome but without a compelling indication, it
is not clear which antihypertensive class provides the most
cardiovascular and metabolic benefit. Furthermore, it is
unclear which class or agent is preferred for initial therapy.
Because patients who have metabolic syndrome but not
diabetes are at an increased risk of developing diabetes,
the propensity of a given antihypertensive class to induce
hyperglycemia must be considered.
It is well documented that thiazide diuretics can impair
glucose tolerance. Hypokalemia induced by thiazide
diuretics is thought to impair insulin secretion, resulting
in hyperglycemia. Findings from the Antihypertensive and
Table 1-3. Approximate Effect of Select Cholesterol-Lowering Agents on Atherogenic Dyslipidemia
Drug and Daily Dosage LDL-C (% reduction) HDL-C (% increase) Triglycerides (% reduction) apoB (% reduction)
Statin
Rosuvastatin, 5–40 mg 45–63
Atorvastatin, 10–80 mg 39–60
Simvastatin, 10–80 mg 27–45
Lovastatin, 10–40 mg 20–30
Pravastatin, 10–40 mg 21–31
Absorption inhibitor
Ezetimibe, 10 mg 18
Fibrate
Fenofibrate, 145 mg 21
Gemfibrozil, 1200 mg 10
Niacin
Extended-release niacin, 1000–2000 mg 5–14
Bile acid sequestrant
Colesevelam, 3800–4500 mg 15–18
Omega-3 fatty acids (prescription) +0–2
apoB = apolipoprotein B; HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.
Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition
Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial
showed that the incidence of new-onset DM was significantly
higher in the group initially receiving chlorthalidone, a
thiazide diuretic, than in the group initially treated with
amlodipine or the group treated with lisinopril at 4 years
follow-up. Despite these differences in the progression to
diabetes between lisinopril, chlorthalidone, and amlodipine,
there was no difference in the primary end point between
the drugs.
It has been argued that the trial duration may not have
been sufficient to determine the long-term effects of new-
onset diabetes. A subgroup analysis of the trial evaluated
the incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes in participants
without diabetes but with metabolic syndrome at baseline.
Patients with metabolic syndrome who were initially
assigned to treatment with lisinopril were less likely to
develop diabetes than those assigned to initial treatment
with chlorthalidone. There was no statistical difference
in the development of diabetes for patients who received
initial treatment with lisinopril compared with amlodipine.
Despite a higher incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes,
patients initially treated with diuretic therapy had a lower
risk of heart failure and combined cardiovascular disease
than those treated with an ACE inhibitor. Again, the lack of
a long duration brings this finding into question.
In contrast to thiazide-type diuretics, treatment with
ACE inhibitors or ARBs has been postulated to delay or
prevent the onset of diabetes. Inhibiting the formation of
angiotensin II or blocking its action may increase insulin
sensitivity and provide protection to the pancreas by
enhancing bloodflow. Retrospective analysis of the Heart
Outcomes Prevention Evaluation trial found that 3.6% of
patients randomized to ramipril developed diabetes (by
self-report) after a mean of 4.5 years compared with 5.4%
randomized to placebo. Similarly, a retrospective analysis of
the Candesartan in Heart Failure-Assessment of Reduction
8–14 10–35 38–54
5–9 19–37 32–50
6–8 14–24 21–37
3–5 11–15 17–25
6–8 14–19 16–26
1 8 16
11 30–50 15–20
14 30–50 17
18–22 21–28 6–16
3 +9–10 12
3–5 30–50 1–2
117 Metabolic Syndrome
in Mortality and Morbidity Program trial found that 6%
of those randomized to candesartan developed diabetes
compared with 7.4% of those randomized to placebo. Several
meta-analyses with similar findings prompted the Diabetes
Reduction Assessment with Ramipril and Rosiglitazone
Medication trial. The trial prospectively evaluated the
effect of ramipril versus placebo on the primary outcome
of diabetes development in patients with IFG or IGT
at baseline. Therapy with ramipril did not result in a
significant decrease in the incidence of diabetes, but it did
improve fasting glucose. These conflicting results prevent
any definitive conclusion. Treatment with calcium channel
blockers appears to be metabolically neutral with little to
no effect on glucose tolerance. Similar to thiazide diuretics,
b-blockers have been associated with hyperglycemia.
Patients with metabolic syndrome who have compelling
indications for treatment with specific antihypertensive
classes should be treated according to the Seventh Report of
the Joint National Committee guidelines. It is reasonable to
initiate ACE inhibitors (or ARB if ACE inhibitor intolerant)
as preferred initial therapy in patients with metabolic
syndrome but without compelling indications. As in most
patients with hypertension, it is likely that two or more
antihypertensive agents will be required to attain the blood
pressure goal in these patients. Preferred combination
therapy includes selection from an ACE inhibitor (or
ARB if ACE inhibitor intolerant), thiazide-type diuretic,
or calcium channel blocker. Currently, there are no strong
data supporting a reduction in mortality with the use of
b-blocker monotherapy for the treatment of hypertension.
Unless a patient has a compelling indication for a different
medication choice, a b-blocker should be initiated after
combination therapy with an ACE inhibitor (or ARB), a
thiazide-type diuretic, and a calcium channel blocker has
been implemented.
Elevated Fasting Glucose
The goals of managing elevated fasting glucose in
patients with metabolic syndrome are (1) in patients with
prediabetes, to lower fasting glucose to less than 100 mg/
dL to delay or prevent the progression to overt diabetes;
and (2) in patients with type 2 DM, to intensively manage
hyperglycemia and other metabolic risk factors (e.g., elevated
blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, obesity) to decrease the risk
of both microvascular and macrovascular complications.
Prediabetes
A target fasting glucose concentration of less than
100 mg/dL should be achieved through intensive lifestyle
interventions that include both weight reduction (i.e., 5% to
10% total body weight loss) and increased physical activity
(about 30 minutes/day on most, if not all, days of the week).
In individuals with prediabetes, two lifestyle-intervention
studies have shown that intensive lifestyle modifications
reduced the risk of diabetes by 58% compared with the
respective control groups. Furthermore, intensive lifestyle
modifications decreased the incidence of metabolic syndrome
by about 40% in individuals with prediabetes without
metabolic syndrome at baseline. The lifestyle modification
programs used in these studies have been intensive and
rigorously monitored. For example, the Diabetes Prevention
Program lifestyle intervention was a goal weight loss
Metabolic Syndrome
of 7% or more and an exercise component of at least
150 minutes/week of moderate-intensity physical activity.
Thus, diabetes risk reduction outcomes observed in well-
controlled clinical studies may not completely translate to
real-life practice when patient adherence to diet and exercise
modification is inconsistent. Nonetheless, aggressive
lifestyle-intervention programs that incorporate both weight
loss and exercise are the primary means of preventing
diabetes in patients with prediabetes.
The use of metformin to delay or prevent the development
of type 2 DM may be appropriate in a select group of
patients with prediabetes. Metformin decreases hepatic
glucose production, increases skeletal muscle glucose
uptake, and promotes weight loss. Lifestyle modification
and/or metformin 850 mg two times/day is recommended
for patients with both IFG and IGT and any one of the
following: age younger than 60 years, BMI of 35 kg/m 2 or
greater, family history of first-degree relative with type 2
DM, elevated triglycerides, reduced HDL-C, hypertension,
or hemoglobin A1C greater than 6%. In the Diabetes
Prevention Program, metformin 850 mg two times/day
reduced the incidence of type 2 DM by 31% compared
with placebo. In addition, metformin was associated with
a 17% decreased incidence of metabolic syndrome in
patients without metabolic syndrome at baseline. Although
metformin is an effective diabetes prevention agent, both
IFG and IGT must be documented before instituting therapy.
Performing an oral glucose tolerance test to document IGT
before starting metformin therapy may be resource- and
cost-prohibitive in some clinical practices.
The thiazolidinediones rosiglitazone and pioglitazone
have garnered considerable attention as potential diabetes
prevention agents. The thiazolidinediones are agonists
for the peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor-g
(PPARg), a nuclear receptor found abundantly in adipose
tissue. By binding to the peroxisome proliferator response
elements in target genes, thiazolidinediones activate the
transcription of numerous genes involved in glucose and
lipid metabolism and adipocyte differentiation. In addition,
thiazolidinediones repress the transcription of certain genes
involved in inflammation. In the clinical setting, these
agents reduce fasting glucose concentrations, improve
insulin sensitivity, increase adiponectin concentrations, and
decrease concentrations of circulating inflammatory and
prothrombotic markers, all of which would be beneficial
in the patient with prediabetes. The Diabetes Reduction
Assessment with Ramipril and Rosiglitazone Medication
trial showed that in patients with prediabetes, rosiglitazone
8 mg once daily was associated with a 60% reduction in
the relative risk of diabetes or death compared with placebo.
Furthermore, rosiglitazone was associated with a 70%
increased likelihood of regression to normoglycemia. A
study with troglitazone, an agent withdrawn from the market
because of hepatotoxicity, showed a 50% reduction in the
incidence of diabetes in women with a history of gestational
diabetes.
Despite impressive diabetes prevention data, safety
concerns regarding weight gain, edema, and congestive
heart failure have plagued the thiazolidinedione class.
Therefore, routine use of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone
in patients with prediabetes cannot be recommended. In
addition, meta-analyses data suggest that rosiglitazone is
118 Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition
associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events.
Thiazolidinedione-associated weight gain is likely because
of subcutaneous adipocyte differentiation and fluid retention.
Although a greater number of small adipocytes may be
advantageous from an insulin sensitivity standpoint, weight
gain in patients with prediabetes is of concern because
many of these patients are already likely to be overweight.
Fluid retention and edema contribute to the increased risk
of congestive heart failure associated with these agents. As
such, both rosiglitazone and pioglitazone carry black box
warnings about congestive heart failure. Data from a meta-
analysis of rosiglitazone clinical studies also suggest that
rosiglitazone increased the odds of myocardial infarction
and cardiovascular death compared with other diabetes
drugs or placebo. Pioglitazone does not appear to increase
the risk of cardiovascular events; however, no large-scale
clinical studies examining the ability of pioglitazone to
prevent type 2 DM in patients with prediabetes have been
published.
Acarbose, an a-glucosidase inhibitor that decreases
postprandial glucose concentrations, has also been
investigated as a diabetes prevention agent. In the Study
to Prevent Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus,
acarbose 100 mg three times/day was associated with a 25%
reduction in the risk of diabetes compared with placebo in
patients with IGT. In addition, acarbose reduced the relative
risk of cardiovascular event and new cases of hypertension
by 49% and 34%, respectively. Acarbose is associated with
a high incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects and has
a cumbersome dosing schedule. Thus, although the data
on the ability of acarbose to prevent diabetes and reduce
cardiovascular risk are intriguing, lack of patient adherence
may limit its routine use in clinical practice.
Type 2 DM
Many, but not all, patients with existing type 2 DM also
have metabolic syndrome. These patients deserve special
attention for intensive management of hyperglycemia and
other metabolic syndrome risk factors to decrease the risks
of both microvascular and macrovascular complications.
In patients with coexisting type 2 DM and metabolic
syndrome, the primary goal of antihyperglycemic therapy is
to decrease hemoglobin A1C to less than 7%. This primary
goal should be accomplished through lifestyle intervention
(i.e., diet and exercise) with or without pharmacologic
therapy, according to current consensus guidelines. When
selecting pharmacologic therapy for patients with type 2
DM and metabolic syndrome, additional consideration must
be given to the potential for certain drugs to exacerbate or
ameliorate other metabolic risk factors (e.g., obesity, insulin
resistance, lipids).
Metformin improves hepatic insulin sensitivity and,
unlike most other antihyperglycemic agents, is weight
neutral, or even induces modest weight loss. Oral insulin
secretagogues (e.g., the sulfonylureas) are unlikely to
improve insulin sensitivity or metabolic risk factors beyond
what can be expected as a result of their glucose-lowering
effects. Sulfonylurea-associated weight gain (about 2
kg) may prompt more aggressive lifestyle modification
strategies in obese patients with metabolic syndrome. The
insulin-sensitizing and anti-inflammatory effects of the
thiazolidinediones target the underlying pathophysiology
Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition
of metabolic syndrome. However, the beneficial effects on
insulin sensitivity and inflammatory markers are tempered
by thiazolidinedione-induced weight gain (about 2–4 kg).
Both agents modestly increase HDL-C. Rosiglitazone
increases LDL-C by about 20%, whereas pioglitazone
has a neutral effect on LDL-C. Pioglitazone reduces
triglycerides by about 20%, whereas rosiglitazone either has
no effect or modestly increases triglyceride concentrations.
The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, sitagliptin, is the
newest oral antidiabetic agent. Sitagliptin has modest
antihyperglycemic efficacy, producing a mean reduction in
hemoglobin A1C of 0.7%. This agent may be advantageous
in obese patients with type 2 DM and metabolic syndrome
because it has a neutral effect on body weight. In addition,
sitagliptin does not appear to adversely affect blood pressure
or lipid concentrations.
Prothrombotic and Pro-inflammatory State
Lifestyle changes leading to weight loss can result
in a reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein
concentrations, suggesting that inflammation is reduced with
weight reduction. Therapy with statins can also reduce high-
sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations. Treatment
with rosuvastatin 20 mg/day reduced the incidence of major
cardiovascular events compared with placebo for an average
follow-up of 1.9 years in patients without hyperlipidemia
but with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations
greater than 2 mg/L. In this study, about 40% of patients
had metabolic syndrome at baseline. Rosuvastatin reduced
high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations by 37%
and LDL-C by 50%.
Therapy with low-dose aspirin is indicated in patients
with existing cardiovascular disease to reduce the risk of
secondary thrombosis. For primary prevention, a variety of
recommendations and guidelines exist. The AHA currently
recommends that aspirin 75–160 mg/day be considered
for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and
stroke in patients with a Framingham risk score of 10% or
more. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updated its
recommendations for aspirin use in March 2009. Aspirin use
is now recommended in men aged 45–79 to reduce the risk
of myocardial infarction and in women aged 55–79 to reduce
the risk of ischemic stroke unless the risk of gastrointestinal
hemorrhage outweighs the benefit. Aspirin therapy is
also routinely recommended in patients with diabetes,
although the evidence supporting this recommendation
has been recently challenged by results from recent trials.
The American Diabetes Association and the AHA jointly
recommend aspirin 75–162 mg/day for primary prevention
of cardiovascular diseases in patients with diabetes who also
have increased cardiovascular risk and no contraindication
to aspirin therapy. Risk factors include age older than 40
years, cigarette smoking, hypertension, albuminuria,
obesity, hyperlipidemia, and a family history of CHD.
Other Agents That Target Metabolic
Syndrome Pathophysiology
Rimonabant
The endocannabinoid system has been implicated in the
pathophysiology of metabolic syndrome, playing a role in
both central and peripheral energy metabolism balance. The
cannabinoid receptor CB1 is located in the central nervous
119 Metabolic Syndrome
system, gastrointestinal tract, adipose tissue, liver, and
muscle. Centrally, activation of CB1 by endocannabinoids
results in appetite stimulation. Peripherally, CB1 activation
results in altered satiety signals, promotion of visceral
fat accumulation, lipogenesis, and hepatic and muscle
insulin resistance. Discovery of these receptors led to the
development of endocannabinoid system antagonists, most
specifically, rimonabant. Blockade of CB1 by rimonabant
decreases weight, reduces waist circumference, increases
HDL-C, and reduces triglycerides in overweight or obese
patients. Despite these findings, rimonabant was not
shown to affect the percent atheroma volume measured by
intravascular ultrasonography compared with placebo in
a randomized trial of patients with metabolic syndrome.
Rimonabant also did not receive U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval because of safety concerns.
Psychiatric events have been more common with rimonabant
than placebo, and two deaths from suicide in patients taking
rimonabant have been reported.
Dual PPARg/PPARa Agonists
The thiazolidinediones, which are PPARg agonists,
improve insulin sensitivity. The fibric acid derivatives,
which are PPARa agonists, have beneficial effects on lipids.
Thus, a pharmacologic agent that simultaneously stimulates
both PPARg and PPARa receptors may be theoretically
advantageous for patients with metabolic syndrome.
However, the development of dual PPARg/PPARa agonists
has been fraught with safety issues. Muraglitazar, a dual
PPARg/PPARa agonist, was associated with an increased
risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients
with type 2 DM. Tesaglitazar, another dual PPARg/PPARa
agonist, was associated with decreased hemoglobin and
absolute neutrophil counts and with increased serum
creatinine. Based on these concerns, development programs
for muraglitazar and tesaglitazar have been discontinued.
PPARg/PPARa agonists currently under development will
likely undergo significant scrutiny regarding cardiovascular
safety before approval. In addition, whether simultaneous
therapy with a PPARg agonist (glitazone) and PPARa
agonist (fibric acid derivative) poses risks similar to the dual
PPARg/PPARa agonists is unknown.
Exenatide
Exenatide is a synthetic version of exendin-4 that mimics
glucagon-like peptide-1, an incretin hormone; exenatide is
approved for the treatment of type 2 DM. By mimicking
glucagon-like peptide-1, exenatide promotes glucose-
dependent insulin secretion and decreases glucagon
secretion during states of hyperglycemia. Furthermore,
exenatide delays gastric emptying, reduces food intake, and
improves satiety. As a result, exenatide is associated with an
average weight loss of 1.5 kg and with beneficial effects on
lipids. The safety and efficacy of exenatide in patients with
metabolic syndrome, but without type 2 DM, remains to
be determined. Considering that exenatide is an expensive
subcutaneous injection, substantial benefits will likely have
to be demonstrated for this agent to be used in patients
without diabetes.
Patient Education
Metabolic Syndrome
Patient education is an important component in the
treatment of patients with metabolic syndrome and can
prevent the development of metabolic syndrome in those
with risk factors. The long-term risks of metabolic syndrome,
including the development of ASCVD and diabetes, must
be thoroughly discussed with each patient. Knowing long-
term risk can provide incentives for patients to implement
change. Because the syndrome is often the result of physical
inactivity and obesity, patient education must focus on self-
change in lifestyle behaviors. The AHA Web site (www.
americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=1200009)
has education tools and information to help patients eat
healthy foods, increase their physical activity, and manage
their weight. For the tools and information to be used fully,
it is important for the pharmacist to introduce the patient to
the Web site and review some of the material available. To
be maximally effective, any educational material used must
be a supplement to a structured dietary and physical activity
regimen prescribed by a health care professional.
Conclusion
Metabolic syndrome is recognized as a multiplex risk
factor for cardiovascular disease and type 2 DM. Although
the predictive usefulness of metabolic syndrome will
continue to be debated, it does have practical utility in the
clinical setting. Patients are often unmotivated to embark
on lifestyle initiatives to improve their health. If assigning
a name to this clustering of health risks motivates patients
to take action, then the term metabolic syndrome has
served its purpose. Furthermore, the concept of metabolic
syndrome may prompt clinicians to more aggressively
assess metabolic risk factors and institute intensive lifestyle
modification counseling. In this respect, it is difficult to
debate the individual and global health benefits of increased
patient and provider awareness of metabolic syndrome
Annotated Bibliography
1. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Daniels SR, Donato KA, Eckel RH,
Franklin BA, et al. Diagnosis and management of metabolic
syndrome: an American Heart Association/National Heart,
Lung, and Blood Institute Scientific Statement. Circulation
2005;112:2735–52.
The AHA/NHLBI Scientific Statement provides updated
diagnostic criteria and clinical management guidelines for
metabolic syndrome in adults. The key updates in the AHA/
NHLBI Scientific Statement include IFG, defined as fasting
plasma glucose of 100 mg/dL or greater; provision of race-
and ethnicity-specific cut points for waist circumference;
inclusion of fibrates or nicotinic acid treatment as both
high triglyceride and low HDL-C components in metabolic
syndrome diagnostic criteria; and clarification of elevated
blood pressure criteria (i.e., systolic blood pressure of 130 mm
Hg or greater and/or diastolic blood pressure of 85 mm Hg or
greater and/or antihypertensive drug treatment in a patient
with a history of hypertension). The primary goal of the
clinical management guidelines provided is to reduce the risk
of ASCVD by addressing underlying modifiable risk factors
120 Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition
 such as obesity, physical inactivity, and an atherogenic diet. diet was 50% to 60% carbohydrates, 15% to 20% protein,
It is recommended that this be accomplished by intensive total fat less than 30%, saturated fat less than 10%, and
lifestyle modification, with subsequent use of drug therapy if cholesterol consumption less than 300 mg/day. Patients were
the absolute risk of ASCVD is high. also advised to consume, on a daily basis, at least 250–300 g
of fruit, 125–150 g of vegetables, 25–50 g of walnuts, 400 g of
2. Alberti KG, Zimmet P, Shaw J. Metabolic syndrome—a new whole grains, and liberal amounts of olive oil. After 2 years
worldwide definition. Lancet 2005;366:1059–62. of therapy, the Mediterranean-style diet was associated with
a greater weight loss compared with the control diet (−4.0 kg
This article presents the 2005 IDF definition of metabolic
vs. −1.2 kg, respectively, p<0.001). In addition, decreases in
syndrome. Individuals of certain races and ethnicities
waist circumference, blood pressure, glucose, insulin, total
often have insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome with
cholesterol, and triglycerides and increases in HDL-C were
only slight increases in waist circumference. Therefore,
greater with the Mediterranean-style diet compared with the
the IDF definition provides detailed race- and ethnicity-
control diet. The Mediterranean-style diet was also associated
specific values for waist circumference for individuals all
with greater reductions in markers of systemic vascular
over the world. Compared with the AHA/NHLBI Scientific
inflammation such as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein,
Statement, the IDF definition places even greater emphasis
interleukin-6, interleukin-7, and interleukin-18. Endothelial
on the role of abdominal obesity in the pathogenesis of
function, as measured by the l-arginine test, improved with
metabolic syndrome. As a result, the presence of abdominal
the Mediterranean-style diet but remained stable with the
obesity is required for a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome.
control diet. This study demonstrated that a Mediterranean-
The IDF cut points for all other components of the syndrome
style diet has favorable effects on metabolic syndrome and
(e.g., reduced HDL-C, increased blood pressure, increased
cardiovascular risk factors. However, additional studies are
fasting glucose, increased triglycerides) remain the same as
required to determine the mechanism by which this diet
the AHA/NHLBI Scientific Statement.
favorably modulates low-grade inflammation in metabolic
syndrome.
3. Eckel RH. Nonsurgical management of obesity in adults. N
Engl J Med 2008;358:1941–50.
5. Shai I, Schwarzfuchs D, Henkin Y, Shahar DR, Witkow S,
The purpose of this contemporary review is to highlight Greenberg I, et al. Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate,
the clinical evaluation and nonsurgical treatment of obesity Mediterranean, or low-fat diet. N Engl J Med 2008;359:229–
in adults. Furthermore, this review article concisely 41.
highlights key points in the NHLBI weight-loss treatment
The Dietary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trial
guidelines (www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/ob_home.
compared the effectiveness and safety of three diets: (1) a
htm). Briefly, BMI, waist circumference, and obesity-
low-fat diet, (2) a Mediterranean-style diet, and (3) a low-
related conditions (e.g., hypertension, glucose intolerance,
carbohydrate diet. The restricted-calorie, low-fat diet was
dyslipidemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obstructive
based on AHA guidelines and included 30% of calories from
sleep apnea) should be routinely assessed in all obese
fat and 10% of calories from saturated fat. The restricted-
adults. Weight loss, even as little as 5% to 10%, favorably
calorie, Mediterranean-style diet consisted of no more than
modulates many metabolic risk factors. It is recommended
35% of calories from fat and was rich in vegetables and low in
that weight loss be accomplished by reducing calorie intake
red meat. Calorie intake was restricted to 1500 kcal in women
and increasing physical activity. Many diets exist for weight
and 1800 kcal in men for both the low-fat and Mediterranean-
loss such as low-fat, low-carbohydrate, low-glycemic index,
style diets. The nonrestricted-calorie, low-carbohydrate diet
high-protein, and commercial diets (e.g., Weight Watchers).
provided 20 g/day of carbohydrates initially, with a gradual
However, no consensus exists on the ideal macronutrient
increase to a maximum of 120 g/day. The study population
composition for optimal weight loss. The principal tenet
included 322 moderately obese, middle-aged individuals
for weight loss is that energy intake must be less than
who were randomized to one of the three closely monitored
energy expenditure. Pharmacologic therapy is considered
dietary interventions. After 2 years, weight loss was
appropriate for some individuals as an adjunct to lifestyle
significantly greater with the low-carbohydrate diet (−4.7 kg)
intervention when lifestyle interventions alone have failed.
and Mediterranean-style diet (−4.4 kg) compared with the
When selecting a weight-loss drug such as phentermine,
low-fat diet (−2.9 kg). Of all the diets, the low-carbohydrate
diethylpropion, sibutramine, or orlistat, the adverse effects
diet was associated with the largest increase in HDL-C (+8.4
and contraindications to therapy should be factored heavily
mg/dL) and the largest decrease in triglycerides (−23.7 mg/
into the decision-making process. Furthermore, it must be
dL). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol decreased with all
recognized that no pharmacologic magic bullet exists for
diets, but the results were not statistically different between
weight loss. The efficacy of available pharmacologic obesity
groups. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein decreased to the
therapies is mediocre, at best.
greatest extent with the low-carbohydrate diet (−29%) and the
Mediterranean-style diet (−21%). In patients with diabetes,
4. Esposito K, Marfella R, Ciotola M, Di Palo C, Giugliano fasting glucose concentrations were lowered to the greatest
F, Giugliano G, et al. Effect of a Mediterranean-style extent (−32.8 mg/dL) with the Mediterranean-style diet. This
diet on endothelial dysfunction and markers of vascular study included a low percentage of women, and the closely
inflammation in metabolic syndrome: a randomized trial. monitored, work-setting intervention might not be readily
JAMA 2004;292:1440–6. applicable to other populations. Despite these limitations, the
The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of low-carbohydrate diet and Mediterranean-style diet appear
a Mediterranean-style diet on endothelial function and to have the most favorable effects on metabolic risk factors.
vascular inflammation in patients with metabolic syndrome.
Patients with an NCEP ATP III diagnosis of metabolic 6. Brunzell JD, Davidson M, Furberg CD, Goldberg RB,
syndrome were randomized in this single-blind study to Howard BV, Stein JH, et al. Lipoprotein management in
a Mediterranean-style diet (n=90) or a control diet (n=90). patients with cardiometabolic risk: consensus statement from
The macronutrient composition of the Mediterranean-style

Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition 121 Metabolic Syndrome

 the American Diabetes Association and the American College
of Cardiology Foundation. Diabetes Care 2008;31:811–22.
This review is a consensus statement evaluating
the appropriate management of lipoproteins in patients
with cardiometabolic risk. Factors that can increase
global cardiometabolic risk include dyslipoproteinemia,
obesity, insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, smoking,
physical inactivity, and genetics including family history.
Dyslipoproteinemia is characterized by elevated triglycerides,
a low HDL-C, and an increased number of small, dense,
LDL particles. There is significant overlap between
cardiometabolic risk and metabolic syndrome, especially
as it pertains to the treatment of dyslipoproteinemia. In
the statement, the authors describe the important role
of both non–HDL-C and apoB in describing the true
number of atherogenic particles in patients with elevated
cardiometabolic risk, as well as in predicting cardiovascular
disease risk. The authors also provide suggested lipoprotein
goals for patients with cardiometabolic risk and lipoprotein
abnormalities. For patients at highest risk, those with known
cardiovascular disease, or those with diabetes plus smoking,
hypertension, or a family history of premature coronary
artery disease, the authors recommend an LDL-C less than
70 mg/dL, a non–HDL-C less than 100 mg/dL, and an apoB
less than 80 mg/dL. For patients at high risk, including those
without diabetes or cardiovascular disease but with two or
more major risk factors (e.g., smoking, hypertension, family
history) or those with diabetes but no other risk factors, the
authors recommend an LDL-C less than 100 mg/dL, a non–
HDL-C less than 130 mg/dL, and an apoB less than 90 mg/
dL. Although current clinical practice is not quite at the point
of evaluating apoB, this consensus represents an important
thought process when interpreting risk and cholesterol goals
for patients with metabolic syndrome.
7. Deedwania P, Barter P, Carmena R, Fruchart JC, Grundy
SM, Haffner S, et al. Reduction of low-density lipoprotein
cholesterol in patients with coronary heart disease and
metabolic syndrome: analysis of the Treating to New Targets
study. Lancet 2006;368:919–28.
This publication is a post hoc analysis of the Treating to
New Targets study. In the original study, 10,001 patients with
CHD and LDL-C less than 130 mg/dL were randomized to
atorvastatin 80 mg/day or atorvastatin 10 mg/day. In this
analysis, the authors identified subjects from the original
study who met criteria for metabolic syndrome. More than
5500 subjects with CHD and metabolic syndrome were
identified. Subjects with metabolic syndrome randomized to
atorvastatin 80 mg achieved a mean LDL-C of 72.6 mg/dL,
whereas those randomized to atorvastatin 10 mg achieved
a mean LDL-C of 99.3 mg/dL. Subjects were evaluated for
the primary end point of time to first major cardiovascular
event (i.e., death from CHD, nonfatal nonprocedural-related
myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or fatal or
nonfatal stroke). After a median of 4.9 years, 367 subjects
(13%) assigned to atorvastatin 10 mg had a primary event
compared with 262 (9.5%) of those assigned to atorvastatin
80 mg (hazard ratio 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI],
0.61–0.84). Furthermore, significantly more subjects with
metabolic syndrome had a primary event than those without,
irrespective of treatment. The primary limitation of this
article is its retrospective design. However, it provides the
best data to date for validating LDL-C treatment goals in
patients with metabolic syndrome. Subjects in the trial had
both CHD and metabolic syndrome. Benefits from targeting
a lower LDL-C should only be applied to this population.
Metabolic Syndrome
8. Black HR, Davis B, Barzilay J, Nwachuku C, Baimbridge
C, Marginean H, et al. Metabolic and clinical outcomes in
individuals without diabetes but with metabolic syndrome
assigned to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril as initial
treatment for hypertension. Diabetes Care 2008;31:353–60.
This is a subgroup analysis of the Antihypertensive and
Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial.
More than 8000 patients with metabolic syndrome but without
diabetes were identified, together with 9502 patients without
metabolic syndrome. At 4 years, 17.1% of patients with
metabolic syndrome who were assigned to chlorthalidone
had developed diabetes, compared with 16% who were
assigned to amlodipine and 12.6% assigned to lisinopril. In
those without metabolic syndrome, the incidence of diabetes
was less in those assigned to amlodipine (4.2%) or lisinopril
(4.7%) compared with those treated with chlorthalidone
(7.7%). Despite the difference in the incidence of diabetes,
no differences in the primary end point of CHD (nonfatal
myocardial infarction or CHD death) were seen in patients
with or without metabolic syndrome for either amlodipine
versus chlorthalidone or lisinopril versus chlorthalidone.
This subgroup analysis provides further evidence that
thiazide-type diuretics are associated with a higher incidence
of new-onset diabetes compared with calcium channel
blockers or ACE inhibitors. Furthermore, the results suggest
that despite the higher incidence of new-onset diabetes, there
is no cardiovascular benefit with using ACE inhibitors over
thiazide-type diuretics in patients with metabolic syndrome.
9. Elliot WJ, Meyer PM. Incident diabetes in clinical trials of
antihypertensive drugs: a network meta-analysis. Lancet
2007;369:201–7.
This meta-analysis evaluated the association between
antihypertensive use and diabetes onset. The authors used a
network meta-analysis, which is a statistical technique that
allows both direct and indirect comparisons of two drugs
even when the drugs have not undergone direct head-to-head
comparisons. After trial identification and screening, 22
randomized, controlled trials were included in the analysis.
Initial treatment with an ARB, ACE inhibitor, calcium
channel blocker, or placebo was associated with significantly
fewer cases of new-onset diabetes than with initial diuretic
treatment. The incidence of diabetes with initial b-blocker
therapy was no different from that seen with a diuretic.
Compared with placebo, the incidence of diabetes onset was
statistically lower only with ARB therapy and statistically
higher only with diuretic therapy. This analysis reinforces
findings from earlier meta-analyses and provides further
information allowing comparisons between individual drug
classes. Although useful, this analysis does not yet provide a
definitive answer to the role of antihypertensives in diabetes
onset.
10. Nathan DM, Davidson MB, DeFronzo RA, Heine RJ, Henry
RR, Pratley R, et al. Impaired fasting glucose and impaired
glucose tolerance: implications for care. Diabetes Care
2007;30:753–9.
The American Diabetes Association convened a consensus
development conference to discuss the prediabetic states
of IFG and IGT. It was determined that IFG and IGT have
a heterogeneous pathogenesis, with principal defects of
diminished first-phase insulin release in isolated IFG and
diminished late-phase insulin release in isolated IGT. A
high percentage of patients with prediabetes eventually
develop diabetes, and diabetes confers an increased risk of
ASCVD. Thus, a major reason to recommend interventions
122 Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition
 for individuals with IFG and/or IGT is to reduce the long- the effects of rosiglitazone on cardiovascular morbidity
term increased risk of ASCVD associated with diabetes. The and mortality have not been assessed in large-scale, long-
Panel recommended intensive lifestyle intervention (i.e., 5% term clinical trials. The purpose of this meta-analysis was
to 10% weight loss and 30 minutes/day of physical activity) to determine the effect of rosiglitazone on cardiovascular
as the treatment of choice for delaying or preventing the morbidity and mortality. Source material consisted of data
onset of diabetes in patients with prediabetes. Metformin from the original U.S. Food and Drug Administration
was identified as the most appropriate drug therapy option submission package, a series of post-approval trials funded
for patients with prediabetes. However, metformin use was by the sponsor, and two large postmarketing studies. Studies
restricted to patients with both IFG and IGT and at least included in the meta-analysis lasted more than 24 weeks, had
one other risk factor (i.e., age younger than 60 years, BMI randomized placebo or active comparator control groups,
of 35 kg/m 2 or greater, family history of diabetes in first- and had available outcomes data for myocardial infarction
degree relatives, elevated triglycerides, reduced HDL-C, or death from cardiovascular outcomes. Compared with the
hypertension, or hemoglobin A1C greater than 6%). Fasting control group, rosiglitazone was associated with an increase
plasma glucose and a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test in the risk of myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR] 1.43;
were indicated as the tests of choice to identify all states 95% CI, 1.03–1.98) and an increase in the risk of death
of hyperglycemia. Individuals with IFG and IGT who are from cardiovascular causes (OR 1.64; 95% CI, 0.98–2.74).
treated with metformin should be monitored semiannually, The results of this meta-analysis were tempered by several
whereas individuals treated with lifestyle intervention should limitations including lack of access to original patient-level
be monitored annually. source data, lack of time-to-event analysis, low number of
events overall, nonadjudicated cardiovascular outcomes,
11. Orchard TJ, Temprosa M, Goldberg R, Haffner S, Ratner R, and the inclusion of studies that were not intended to assess
Marcovina S, et al. The effect of metformin and intensive cardiovascular outcomes. Despite these limitations, a signal
lifestyle intervention on metabolic syndrome: the Diabetes for increased cardiovascular risk was evident for rosiglitazone
Prevention Program randomized trial. Ann Intern Med therapy. These results have diminished enthusiasm for
2005;142:611–9. rosiglitazone as a diabetes prevention agent.
The Diabetes Prevention Program randomized more than
3000 participants with IGT and fasting plasma glucose
between 95 mg/dL and 125 mg/dL to intensive lifestyle
intervention, metformin 850 mg two times/day, or placebo.
In this ancillary report, one of the main objectives was to
determine whether lifestyle intervention or metformin
reduced the incidence of new cases of metabolic syndrome,
or resolved existing cases of metabolic syndrome, in program
participants. The presence of metabolic syndrome was
ascertained using NCEP ATP III criteria (three or more of
the following criteria: waist circumference greater than 102
cm in men and greater than 88 cm in women; triglycerides of
150 mg/dL or greater; HDL-C less than 40 mg/dL in men and
less than 50 mg/dL in women; blood pressure 130/85 mm Hg
or greater; and fasting plasma glucose 110 mg/dL or greater).
In participants without metabolic syndrome at baseline, the
incidence of metabolic syndrome during a 3-year period was
reduced by 41% in the lifestyle-intervention group (p<0.001)
and by 17% in the metformin group (p<0.03) compared with
placebo. In participants with metabolic syndrome at baseline,
resolution of metabolic syndrome occurred in 38% of the
lifestyle-intervention group, 23% of the metformin group,
and 18% of the placebo group. In all study participants, from
baseline to 3 years, the prevalence of metabolic syndrome
decreased from 51% to 43% in the lifestyle-intervention
group (p=0.003), stayed constant in the metformin group
(54% to 55%, p>0.2), and increased from 55% to 61% in the
placebo group (p<0.001). In the entire study population, the
observed effects of lifestyle on the prevention and resolution
of metabolic syndrome were primarily driven by decreases
in waist circumference and blood pressure. The external
validity of this report is limited given the high-risk, glucose-
intolerant population studied. However, these data suggest
that lifestyle intervention has a dramatic, beneficial effect on
both the prevention and resolution of metabolic syndrome.

12. Nissen SE, Wolski K. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of

myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes.
N Engl J Med 2007;356:2457–71.
Clinical studies have demonstrated that rosiglitazone
effectively lowers blood glucose in patients with type 2 DM
and prevents diabetes in patients with prediabetes. However,

Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition 123 Metabolic Syndrome

Metabolic Syndrome 124 Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition
Self-Assessment Questions
1. T.K. is a 45-year-old African American man who
presents to his primary care physician for a discussion
of the cholesterol results obtained 1 week ago during
his annual physical examination. His fasting lipid
panel is as follows: total cholesterol 240 mg/dL; low-
density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) 149 mg/dL;
high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) 35 mg/
dL; and triglycerides 280 mg/dL. His blood pressure is
128/82 mm Hg. Which one of the following is the best
measurement to be performed at this visit to assess the
presence of metabolic syndrome in T.K.?
A. Plasma high-sensitivity C-reactive protein
concentration.
B. Waist circumference.
C. Fasting plasma insulin concentration.
D. Height and weight to calculate body mass index
(BMI).
2. H.M., a 43-year-old Hispanic woman with a history
of gestational diabetes (12 years ago), presents to her
primary care physician’s office with concerns that
she has diabetes. Her concerns stem from her recent
attendance at a local health fair, at which she was
told that her blood glucose was high (random finger-
stick blood glucose of 180 mg/dL). H.M. is upset
about this information because her mother died from
complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) at age
68. Fasting laboratory tests at the physician’s office visit
show the following: plasma glucose 118 mg/dL, total
cholesterol 190 mg/dL, LDL-C 109 mg/dL, HDL-C 45
mg/dL, and triglycerides 180 mg/dL. H.M.’s BMI is
calculated to be 38 kg/m2, waist circumference is 98
cm, and blood pressure is 130/80 mm Hg. Which one
of the following is the best initial diabetes prevention
treatment for H.M.?
A. Rosiglitazone 4 mg/day titrated up to 8 mg/day.
B. Metformin 850 mg/day titrated up to 850 mg two
times/day.
C. Lifestyle modification with diet and exercise.
D. Acarbose 50 mg/day titrated up to 100 mg three
times/day.
Questions 3–5 pertain to the following case.
You are a clinical pharmacist at a busy family medicine
clinic conducting a retrospective chart review of the types
of obesity drugs prescribed to patients in your clinic. Of 100
patient charts evaluated, 60 patients appear to have metabolic
syndrome. However, neither the presence of metabolic
syndrome nor the clinical management plan is documented
by providers. You view this as an opportunity to develop
a pharmacist-run metabolic syndrome management clinic
and develop a proposal to present to the board of directors
outlining the development and potential effect of a metabolic
syndrome management clinic in your clinic setting.
Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition
3. To support the clinical utility of identifying metabolic
syndrome, which one of the following best justifies a
metabolic syndrome clinic?
A. Metabolic syndrome is highly predictive of
cardiovascular mortality in people older than 65
years.
B. Metabolic syndrome is more predictive of
cardiovascular risk in men than in women.
C. Metabolic syndrome is predictive of a high short-
term cardiovascular risk.
D. Metabolic syndrome is more predictive of
cardiovascular risk than each metabolic syndrome
risk factor alone in people younger than 65 years.
4. In designing the diagnosis and treatment algorithm
for the clinic, which one of the following is the best
measurement to initially assess type 2 DM risk in every
patient who presents to the clinic?
A. Fasting plasma glucose concentration.
B. Random plasma glucose concentration.
C. Hemoglobin A1C level.
D. Oral glucose tolerance test.
5. In designing the plan to evaluate the success of the
clinic, the primary end point is chosen to be resolution
of metabolic syndrome. Which one of the following
secondary end points is the best and most practical
measure of the ability of the clinic intervention to
alter the underlying pathophysiology of metabolic
syndrome?
A. Change in lipids as measured by LDL-C.
B. Change in insulin sensitivity as measured by the
hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp test.
C. Change in abdominal obesity as measured by waist
circumference.
D. Change in systolic blood pressure as measured by
24-hour ambulatory monitoring.
Questions 6 and 7 pertain to the following case.
A.K. is a 65-year-old woman with metabolic syndrome and
prediabetes. Clinical measurements show that her waist
circumference is 91 cm; height is 165 cm; weight is 87.3
kg; blood pressure is 128/78 mm Hg; total cholesterol is
210 mg/dL; HDL-C is 45 mg/dL; LDL-C is 134 mg/dL;
and triglycerides are 224 mg/dL. After a social history and
dietary interview, A.K. reveals that she is a grandmother
who, together with her husband, is raising her three
grandchildren, ages 8, 10, and 12. A.K. prepares all of the
meals for her family. The main meals primarily consist of
pasta, white rice, bread, frozen vegetables, poultry, red
meat, and occasionally fish. She admits to making fried
food two times/week, making cookies or cakes three times/
week, and never limiting portion sizes. Although she knows
she has to lose weight, she does not want to make special
meals for herself and prefers to cook meals that can feed
everyone in her family.
125 Metabolic Syndrome
6. Which one of the following is the best initial weight-
loss goal for A.K. during the next 6 months?
A. Decrease total body weight by 6 kg.
B. Decrease BMI to less than 25 kg/m 2.
C. Decrease waist circumference to less than 76 cm.
D. Decrease body fat to less than 20%.
7. Given A.K.’s clinical and social history, which one of
the following is the best diet plan to recommend?
A. Nonrestricted-calorie, low-fat diet.
B. Restricted-calorie, Mediterranean-style diet.
C. Nonrestricted-calorie, low-carbohydrate diet.
D. Restricted-calorie, liquid shake diet.
8. D.B. is a 58-year-old obese man with a medical history
significant for metabolic syndrome, uncontrolled
hypertension, prediabetes, depression, and anxiety.
Through diet and exercise alone, for the past 7 months,
D.B. has lost 6.4 kg. Currently, his BMI is 32 kg/m 2,
weight is 103.6 kg, and waist circumference is 112
cm. Despite his efforts, D.B. has not achieved his
weight-loss goals with diet and exercise alone. D.B. is
frustrated that his weight loss has reached a plateau,
and he asks if there are any drugs that would help him
lose more weight. Which one of the following is the best
pharmacologic intervention to augment D.B.’s diet and
exercise program?
A. Phentermine.
B. Orlistat.
C. Sibutramine.
D. Metformin.
9. J.N. is a 47-year-old man with type 2 DM who recently
completed participation in a Phase III clinical trial of a
novel, dual peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor
(PPAR)g/PPARa agonist. He took an active study
drug for 24 weeks with no major adverse events. From
baseline to week 24, which one of the following would
be the most likely observed metabolic effect of the dual
PPARg/PPARa agonist?
A. Decrease in triglycerides from 220 mg/dL to 160
mg/dL.
B. Decrease in blood pressure from 140/90 mm Hg to
128/74 mm Hg.
C. Decrease in total body weight from 118 kg to 105
kg.
D. Decrease in serum creatinine from 1.5 mg/dL to
0.9 mg/dL.
10. S.T. is a 65-year-old man with type 2 DM, metabolic
syndrome, and congestive heart failure (New York Heart
Association class III). His diabetes is uncontrolled,
and his hemoglobin A1C is 7.8%. S.T. currently takes
glyburide 10 mg two times/day. His BMI is 36 kg/
m2, waist circumference is 109 cm, blood pressure is
142/86 mm Hg, and serum creatinine is 1.7 mg/dL. His
lipid panel shows the following: HDL-C 44 mg/dL,
LDL-C 98 mg/dL, triglycerides 140 mg/dL, and total
cholesterol 170 mg/dL. Which one of the following is
the best agent to add to his current diabetes regimen
Metabolic Syndrome
to lower his hemoglobin A1C and improve metabolic
syndrome risk factors?
A. Pioglitazone.
B. Metformin.
C. Acarbose.
D. Exenatide.
11. Which one of the following patients with metabolic
syndrome is the best candidate for bariatric surgery,
assuming lifestyle interventions have failed to achieve
the desired weight loss?
A. A patient with fasting plasma glucose of 90 mg/dL,
BMI of 35 kg/m 2, and binge-eating disorder.
B. A patient with fasting plasma glucose of 118 mg/
dL, BMI of 37 kg/m 2, and unstable angina.
C. A patient with fasting plasma glucose of 184 mg/
dL, BMI of 39 kg/m 2, and sleep apnea.
D. A patient with fasting plasma glucose of 229 mg/
dL, BMI of 41 kg/m 2, and bipolar manic depression.
12. C.M. is a 66-year-old white man with a BMI of 23
kg/m 2, waist circumference of 81 cm, HDL-C 47 mg/
dL, triglycerides 138 mg/dL, fasting plasma glucose
112 mg/dL, and blood pressure of 128/76 mm Hg.
His current drugs are fenofibrate 120 mg once daily,
tamsulosin 0.4 mg once daily, and ibuprofen as needed
for back pain. Using metabolic syndrome diagnostic
criteria, which one of the following statements is most
accurate regarding C.M.?
A. He has metabolic syndrome according to American
Heart Association/National Heart, Lung and Blood
Institute (AHA/NHLBI) criteria.
B. He has metabolic syndrome according to
International Diabetes Federation (IDF) criteria.
C. He has metabolic syndrome according to World
Health Organization (WHO) criteria.
D. He does not have metabolic syndrome.
Questions 13 and 14 pertain to the following case.
T.K. is a 55-year-old obese man with metabolic syndrome,
osteoarthritis, type 2 DM, and a history of myocardial
infarction. His stress test is normal. Through dietary
changes alone, his weight decreased from 132 kg to 114 kg,
and his waist circumference decreased from 132 cm to 112
cm during a period of 8 months.
13. Which one of the following is the best next step
regarding T.K.’s lifestyle-intervention plan?
A. No change is recommended because the patient has
already met appropriate weight-loss goals.
B. Initiate jogging (5 miles/hour) for 10 minutes three
times/week.
C. Initiate swimming for 30 minutes three times/
week.
D. Participate in gardening for 60 minutes three
times/week.
14. Which one of the following is the best assessment of
thiazolidinedione use in T.K?
126 Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition
 A. He should not use pioglitazone because it is 2-hour plasma glucose concentration was 132 mg/dL after
reserved for individuals with documented insulin a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. His blood pressure is
resistance, as measured by homeostasis model 148/94 mm Hg, and his pulse rate is 92 beats/minute. D.N.
assessment. weighs 93.2 kg and is 177.8 cm tall. The patient has smoked
B. He should be given rosiglitazone because it is less 1 pack of cigarettes daily for 32 years.
likely to cause edema than pioglitazone.
C. He should not use rosiglitazone because it is 18. Which one of the following is the best blood pressure
reserved for individuals who are at low risk of goal for D.N. at this time?
cardiovascular events. A. Less than 140/90 mm Hg.
D. He should be given rosiglitazone because it is less B. Less than 130/85 mm Hg.
likely to cause weight gain than pioglitazone. C. Less than 130/80 mm Hg.
D. Less than 120/80 mm Hg.
Questions 15 and 16 pertain to the following case.
R.J. is a 65-year-old man with a history of myocardial 19. Which one of the following is the best initial
infarction, hypertension, and depression. He currently hypertension treatment for D.N. at this time?
takes metoprolol succinate 100 mg/day, lisinopril 40 mg/
A. Lisinopril 5 mg/day.
day, citalopram 20 mg/day, and aspirin 81 mg/day. Clinical
B. Atenolol 25 mg/day.
measurements show that his waist circumference is 107 cm;
C. Amlodipine 2.5 mg/day.
height 178 cm, weight 100 kg, blood pressure 136/78 mm Hg,
D. Hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg/day.
total cholesterol 237 mg/dL, HDL-C 42 mg/dL, LDL-C 140
mg/dL, triglycerides 245 mg/dL, and fasting plasma glucose
20. Which one of the following is the best treatment to
105 mg/dL. R.J. denies previous treatment for cholesterol,
initiate for D.N. at this time?
stating that he controls it with his diet and exercise.
A. Rosiglitazone 2 mg/day.
15. Which one of the following is the best lipid goal for R.J. B. Pravastatin 40 mg/day.
at this time? C. Aspirin 81 mg/day.
D. Metformin 500 mg/day.
A. Triglycerides less than 200 mg/dL.
B. LDL-C less than 70 mg/dL.
C. Non–HDL-C less than 130 mg/dL.
D. Apolipoprotein B (apoB) less than 80 mg/dL.

16. Which one of the following is the best treatment plan to

initiate today for R.J.?
A. Colesevelam 3800 mg/day and rosiglitazone 2 mg/
day.
B. Extended-release niacin 500 mg/day.
C. Gemfibrozil 600 mg two times/day and metformin
500 mg/day.
D. Rosuvastatin 10 mg/day.

17. S.P. is a 45-year-old man with diabetes, hypertension,

continued cigarette smoking, and abdominal obesity.
He is currently being treated with atorvastatin 10 mg/
day, fenofibrate 48 mg/day, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5
mg/day, irbesartan 150 mg/day, aspirin 81 mg/day,
metformin 1000 mg two times/day, and glipizide 10 mg
two times/day. His full lipid panel is as follows: total
cholesterol 144 mg/dL, LDL 67 mg/dL, HDL 46 mg/dL,
and triglycerides 205 mg/dL. S.P.’s apoB was measured
and found to be 110 mg/dL. Which one of the following
is the best recommendation at this time?
A. Initiate extended-release niacin 500 mg/day.
B. Add fish oil 2 g two times/day.
C. Initiate ezetimibe 10 mg/day.
D. Increase atorvastatin to 80 mg/day.

Questions 18–20 pertain to the following case

D.N. is a 59-year-old man with no significant medical history.
His most recent laboratory data show total cholesterol 152
mg/dL, LDL-C 95 mg/dL, HDL-C 38 mg/dL, triglycerides
275 mg/dL, and fasting plasma glucose 115 mg/dL. D.N.’s

Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition 127 Metabolic Syndrome

Metabolic Syndrome 128 Pharmacotherapy Self-Assessment Program, 6th Edition